Mykolo Römerio indėlis į Klaipėdos klausimo sprendimą Hagos teisme

LTLietuvos diplomatų kova dėl Klaipėdos pripažinimo baigėsi 1924 m. gegužės 8 d. Klaipėdos konvencijos ir statuto priėmimu. Šių dokumentų signatarais, be Lietuvos, buvo Didžioji Britanija, Prancūzija, Italija, Japonija. Dokumentai buvo kompromisiniai, turėjo spragų, neaiškumų, tačiau iš esmės konstatavo Lietuvos suverenitetą Klaipėdai bei pastarosios autonomiją. Kaip yra pažymėjęs Vytautas Žalys, remiantis jais buvo galima tikėtis abiejų pusių interesų suderinimo bei stabilaus koegzistavimo. Tačiau gyvenimo praktika parodė, kad abi pusės, nors ir nevienodai žiūrėjo į dokumentus, susidariusią padėtį vertino kaip laikiną. Centras iš esmės vykdė ne krašto integravimo, bet prijungimo politiką, o vietos vokiečiai, remdamiesi dokumentais, gynė savo pozicijas krašte ir puoselėjo viltis susijungti su Vokietija. Padėtis labai susikomplikavo 4-ojo dešimtmečio pradžioje, kai Vokietijoje pradėjo ryškėti antiversalinės, revanšistinės nuotaikos ir padažnėjo jos kišimasis į Klaipėdos reikalus. Lietuvos antivalstybinės jėgos - vokietininkai - suaktyvino savo veiklą [p. 134].

ENOn the 11th of August 1932 the Hague Tribunal recognised the right of the governor (the representative of the Lithuanian government in the province) of Klaipėda to recall the chairman of the directory in the extreme case if his activities violated Lithuania’s sovereignty and integrity, if he did not execute the clauses of the Lithuanian Constitution for the autonomous province of Klaipėda, and the regulations of the Klaipėda Convention and Statute. That was a victory of Lithuania against the annexionist designs of the local Germans and Germany. The public opinion of Lithuania related this victory not only with the lawfuless of the matter, but also with excellent representation of Lithuania’s interests at the tribunal. Besides the official representative of Lithuania, Vaclovas Sidzikauskas, Professor Mykolas Römeris was present at the court as a national judge ad hoc. His position at the court was different from that of the official represenative and was considered by him liberal-personal rather than civic-patriotic.An analysis of Römeris’s scientific and political articles and his personal diary shows that the explanation of his attitude on the basis of his personal interests is inadmissible. His ideological and political views, his views of the problems of the statehood of Lithuania at the time were, no doubt, influenced by his attitude. As a national judge at The Hague, Römeris emphasised the necessity to preserve the autonomy of the Klaipėda province, and he was against the restriction of the competence of the autonomous government. He, being a partisan of democracy, of civil rather than national society, being against the colonizational annexation of the province by Lithuania, being for preservation and development of the individuality of the province, tried to preserve these structures for the perspectives of democratic rule in Lithuania. Under the conditions of authoritarian rule, he believed, these structures could serve as a real basis for such perspectives and emphasised this in his comments of the pronouncement of the tribunal. At the Hague Tribunal in July-August 1932, Römeris, being a judge ad hoc for Lithuania, was interested not only in getting the sanctions of the international court in favour of Lithuania to administrate the Klaipėda province but also in creating the premises for solving the internal problems of the statehood of Lithuania.